Timeline for If the VP were to invoke the 25th amendment to remove the President as unfit for office, would acting secretaries be able to consent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 7, 2021 at 5:21 | answer | added | Rick Smith | timeline score: 9 | |
| Sep 6, 2017 at 18:12 | vote | accept | Stephen Collings | ||
| Mar 5, 2017 at 21:13 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/838497728179093505 | ||
| Jan 27, 2017 at 3:15 | comment | added | Ben Voigt | There seems to be a lot of commentary over what would or would not count as "unfit". it doesn't matter, because contrary to what the question asserts, the 25th amendment does not allow removal of a president who is "unfit". The criteria used in the amendment, multiple times, is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 22:45 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @phoog - So one might want to make sure not to get more Machiavellian nominees appointed before the more compliant ones. Can we say "Constitutional Crisis?" Interesting question. +1 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 22:14 | answer | added | Ben Cooper | timeline score: 12 | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 21:52 | history | edited | Stephen Collings | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 21 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 26, 2017 at 20:32 | history | edited | Brythan |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 26, 2017 at 19:13 | comment | added | Stephen Collings | @sabbahillel I agree that's an interesting question. Ask it! | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 19:11 | comment | added | phoog | @sabbahillel it might be a more interesting question, but it is a completely different question. Whether anyone is in the chain of succession is not relevant to the process of declaring a president unfit for office. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 19:08 | comment | added | phoog | A majority must be more than half. So if acting secretaries don't count, and there are only two confirmed heads, then both would have to consent. But the amendment says "principal officers," which doesn't explicitly exclude acting heads, so acting heads probably do count. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 19:07 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 26, 2017 at 21:28 | |||||
| Jan 26, 2017 at 19:06 | comment | added | Stephen Collings | I'm not sure why this is getting downvotes. Some constructive criticism please? | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 19:00 | comment | added | sabbahillel | You should ask if the acting secretary of a cabinet position is in the chain of succession. I think that would be a more interesting question. Consider the Secretary of State in that chain. At what point after he becomes acting president does his deputy enter the chain so that the next in line is no longer eligible. | |
| Jan 26, 2017 at 18:44 | history | asked | Stephen Collings | CC BY-SA 3.0 |